Kamran Abbasi

The world’s most powerful American, by some estimates, made two important statements this week. First, he urged a de-escalation of the Middle East war.1 Second, he argued that “health cannot be a luxury for the few” and called for healthcare to be available to vulnerable people to protect their dignity and prevent conflict.2 The Pope is a man of faith but also of good conscience in his plea for “social peace”—which aligns with goal 16 of the UN’s sustainable development goals. Remember them?3In the depths of a forever political crisis, a perpetual culture war, and global conflict and hatred imbued with extremist religious rhetoric, it can be easy to forget the power of religion as a social force for good. Similarly, it’s easy to overlook the damage being done by cuts to foreign aid (doi:10.1136/bmj.r1913 doi:10.1136/bmj.r1902 …

Before the covid pandemic emerged in 2020, The BMJ held a conference in East Asia. The region had been shaken by the H1N1 (swine flu) pandemic of 2009.1 The conference was dominated by presentations on the response and preparations for the next pandemic. One aspect was plans for surge capacity—when hospital systems are in danger of being overwhelmed. It can be no coincidence that those very countries were better able to respond to covid-19 despite being near neighbours of China.An independent review led by Deirdre Hine in 2010 commended the UK’s response to swine flu (doi:10.1136/bmj.c3569),2 but it warned against complacency. “There will be another pandemic,” wrote Hine, “and that one may be more severe.” She also rejected the claim that the response was overblown: “The costs may seem enormous, but it is clear that lives were saved by the action taken.” Do we now remember Hine’s review? Did we just bask in the plaudits and ignore the warnings?Despite the lessons from swine flu, the UK was blindsided by the covid pandemic owing to the effects of the Lansley reforms, austerity measures, and the self-harming distraction of Brexit. Kevin Fong, an intensive care specialist, has likened the systemic shock of the covid pandemic to that of the second world war.3 That is a notable mitigation: no amount of preparation could insulate any country from the damage of covid-19—even the best prepared. Yet Hallett’s latest …

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are not what matters; it’s the markets, stupid. By many accounts, Donald Trump is keen to end the US and Israel’s war on Iran not because nebulous objectives have been achieved or because the world is now a safer place. The reason is a global economy spiralling out of control over the effective closure of the Strait of Hormuz, and “the markets” don’t like it. At this moment, thank heaven for the markets—although they played a strong hand in creating the crisis in the first place.However, one contributor to that market, the pharmaceutical industry, continues to soar untroubled above a global catastrophe. Médecins Sans Frontières—better known for its humanitarian work responding to the criminal destruction of civilian life and infrastructure in the Middle East, which regrettably continues to include hospitals and healthcare facilities—is taking the time to bring another parallel war back to our attention: the …

Is technology already ruling us? A recent television series, The Capture , features artificial intelligence as its central character. The AI even has a name: Simon. In a fictional British security service humans no longer make decisions, however high ranking. Simon decides on everything, and what Simon says is an order to execute. Does the same apply to the UK government and Palantir, a controversial technology company?The debate on health data is highly charged. What are the principles of data stewardship? How should data be safely managed? We must make the best technical use of the data while ensuring privacy and security. It’s also important to operate the data environment in an ethically sound way, meeting the expectations of patients and health professionals.An alarming data breach at the …

Is Donald Trump well? The US president claims that his health is “perfect,” but not judging by his medical history. Given that most national leaders are of a certain age before they gain power, some ill health is inevitable. Illness in leaders is a point of both academic study and unfettered speculation—a prime example being how Winston Churchill’s illnesses affected his decision making.1 Leadership can change the wellbeing of leaders too, as the doctor and politician David Owen has shown in his work on hubris.2Cognitive competence of leaders is harder to get at, and commenting on it has become taboo for health professionals. The General Medical Council advises against it in the UK, and the Goldwater rule also discourages it in the US. But these can’t be absolutes, surely? …

An argument championed by the US regime’s health leaders is that they are returning to core scientific principles. It’s an argument open to challenge. When Donald Trump proposed a link between using Tylenol (paracetamol) in pregnancy and ADHD and autism spectrum disorder in children (doi:10.1136/bmj.r2025),1 the roars of scepticism were soon followed by evidence syntheses that failed to find an association (doi:10.1136/bmj.r2368 doi:10.1136/bmj-2025-088141 doi:10.1136/bmj.r2438).234Has the idea died? Given that Trump’s every statement is a shot heard around the world—and that a technical article in a medical journal may not be read even by its intended audience of professionals—the chances …

Less dangerous liaisons: a solution to corporate corruption of political choice

Power over the people: unwise NHS reform delivers unprecedented political control

The debate on prostate cancer screening is life, the universe, and everything boiled down to one question — and the answer isn’t 42. Whether or not men should be routinely screened for prostate cancer seems simple enough to answer, but only on the face of it. As two position statements from the UK’s National Screening Committee show — one on multicancer detection tests (doi:10.1136/bmj-2026-089868),1 the other on surrogate outcomes (doi:10.1136/bmj-2026-629407)2 — screening decisions are steeped in complexity.Albert Einstein is credited with saying, “Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.” This is advice that medical professionals and journals are well advised to heed. Certainly, the screening committee has mastered it: you may not agree with the committee’s verdicts, but you can’t fault the detailed clarity of its explanations.The clamour for screening is everywhere. If you can test for it, you should screen for it. A missed or late …

There is always something new under the sun. Last week the American Diabetes Association (ADA) shocked the world of medicine and science by ordering police to remove its journal’s editor, and others, from the society’s major annual conference (doi:10.1136/bmj-2026-511576).1 Steven Kahn, editor in chief of the society’s journal Diabetes Care , had upset the ADA leadership by writing and publishing a journal editorial critical of President Trump’s damaging attack on US medical science. The ADA explained itself by saying that it was unable to allow politicisation of its event because of its charitable status. The explanation rang hollow given that it had invited members of the Trump administration to speak at the conference.If there is a time for science editors to get political—and US journals tend to be more conservative and politically silent than their UK counterparts—it is now (doi:10.1136/bmj-2026-555118).2 Even the New England Journal of Medicine recently took the rare step of criticising the …